“even Democratic critics of woke dogma admit that progressives have been responsible for reinvigorating the party after the disappointments and setbacks of the Obama era.”
Really? Seriously? Only if “reinvigorating” the party means “handing it over to baby Stalinists who want to cancel and virtue signal the party’s way to electoral oblivion.”
It’s 13 months since Trump won a second election and the Dems still don’t get it. If you say, "but unchecked illegal immigration isn’t a good thing,” you’re a racist deplorable who doesn’t want to admit that this country was built on immigrants. If you say that men can’t turn into women, you’re a transphobe who wants to erase “trans women.” Meanwhile, 25% of students at UC San Diego can’t answer “7 + 2 = ? + 6”.* This is a highly selective university that rejects 75% of applicants. Harvard and Stanford, which reject >95% of applicants run remedial math classes.
The Dems haven’t been reinvigorated They’ve turned into a woke mob. And they won’t win the presidency until they find their way back to sanity.
The only thing keeping the Democrat party alive at this moment is Donald Trump. The Democrat party is otherwise dead. It is the party of identity politics that include, but not limited to African-Americans illegal aliens queers Marxists elite academics and of course unions most especially the teachers unions are destroying American education. Once Donald J Trump is gone the Democrats will have nothing to say. Of course, a lot of what I am saying will depend on who replaces Trump. On that same token who is going to be the Democrat nominate. The top four so-called contenders Pitzka Newsom, Kamala waltz, and that bum from California Ro something out of the question. Oh yeah, and AOC what a joke that would be.
I've said this before, but the far-left will hate JD Vance just as much as they hate Trump, if not more. Expect a lot of talk about how he's the Commander from The Handmaid's Tale whereas Trump was just a crass buffoon and wannabe dictator. Vance really will be able to deliver on the fascist America that Trump wanted.
Whether or not they can sell moderates on this as well will be interesting.
Distrust of government is huge. Note, though, that it's not the Democrats urging investigations into "big food" but RFK, Jr. (Yes, SF has launched a lawsuit, which will go nowhere). Note that it is Trump's administration talking about breaking up some big monopolies. Notice that it is Trump's HHS that is rolling back the massively distrusted vax mandates. Note that it is Trump's administration questioning the STATES' willingness to hand out drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. Note that it is Trump who is investigating the Somaliland welfare fraud in MN. In short, wherever you look, Trump is using government to address the DISTRUST in government. Democrats aren't even in the same universe.
Now, for my usual roundup---and yes there was a great poll for Trump and I put no more stock in good ones for him than bad ones---we had a BIG drop in voter registration data last week, including DE, NJ, ID, UT, FL, CO, KY, LA, RI, PA, and NC. There were so many I'm probably leaving some out. Out of all these observations, only PA and maybe 2 others saw any gain whatsoever by Ds (and we're talking a couple of hundred, not thousands). PA was one, where Ds reclaimed about 270, despite not moving the needle at all in the "swing" counties such as Northampton. But otherwise, we are looking at---yet again, for the 20th straight month---solid R gains. Now, let's be clear: in many cases BOTH parties (+indies) lost numbers to voter roll purges, but in almost all cases the Rs gained ground in those shifts. But the biggies---IA (Rs gained 1/2 point statewide), FL (Rs gained yet another 10,000 to go up over 1.4 million), and NC (Rs gained another net 3,000, meaning by this time Feb NC will be a red state---all moved red-ward. This is completely inconsistent with "polling" and suggests that whatever reservations voters have about Rs, they are terrified of Ds. The Amazing Zohran in NYC will only hurt as his crazed policies come into effect. The investigations of Walz will only hurt. And Newsome? CA continues to wallow.
A "tea party" of the left would involve serious efforts to distance themselves from the vax; from China; from "climate change" (which is collapsing world wide); to embrace Big Data and Big Oil for Big Data; to embrace crypto; to break up Hollywood monopolies; and to insist that not only can there be NO fraud at all associated with illegals, but all illegals must go. Now, do you really see any of that happening? Hence, voter registration shifts.
I'd not mention JFK so as not to be thought a crazy like he is. Trump made a promise and kept it, it was up to the senate to turn down that nomination and they blew it. The sec of HHS is anti germ theory.
First, that’s a disingenuous criticism after literally 50 years of horrible nutrition science like the 80s war on fat. We replaced saturated fat with trans fats and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and pursued a high sugar and refined carb alternative to a wholesome diet of steak and potatoes.
As to terrain theory, it’s flawed but germ theory cannot incorporate good microbes like those in the gut biome. Terraine theory is an incremental improvement, although bad bacteria can invade a healthy biome.
The largest Dem hurdle? Trump has an expiration date. Lousy Dem policy does not. Bob is right. Trump is the Dem MVP. Only Trump's spending and language, lousy Rep messaging, and the Left's nearly magical Madison Avenue ability to repackage tired ideas, are keeping Dems afloat.
"Affordability" is just "inflation" with new verbiage that allows Dems to blame Reps for Biden's historic rise in prices. Reps should daily be spouting Biden's greatest hits.
1. Trillions flushed on Green fantasies based on "Climate facts" with all the scientific accuracy of the Flat Earth Society. Everyone from Bill Gates to Nature Magazine is mumbling "Sorry, our Bad", after Dems wasted trillions on every loonie Climate idea ever birthed.
Dems seriously proclaimed the death of fossil fuels. They shuttered refineries, pipelines, nuclear power plants and coal facilities with nothing to replace them but wind and solar fairy tales. Then Dems tossed wood on the fire of the Mother of All Bad Ideas, with EV mandates and subsidies, insane appliance and building regulations. . . The combination has produced soaring energy prices, in a nation awash in energy reserves.
2. Housing costs increased 50% or more, nationwide, due to Dems holding interest rates too low for too long, the arrival of 10-12 million migrants without a single extra bedroom to house them and Green regulation.
3. Dem Child social engineering cheered the removal of healthy child body parts, the end of fertility before high school graduation, via "medication", and boys in Girl's female spaces. Dems topped off their War on Children, with many Blue State schools closed for 18 months. The result has been the worst US school test scores in decades.
4. DEI and woke, enough said.
5. Massive increases in healthcare and welfare spending with little to no citizen benefit. Costs were stoked by the lethal combination of lousy policy, massive waste and fraud, and the purposeful importation of 10 -12 million of people, most in need of permanent subsidy.
Yet, no Dem is repudiating any of the above. No Dem Party Reformation coming, just Mamdani and our daily Donald diatribe. Reps may well hand Dems Congress and the WH, but Dem policy will not.
It has to be hard for a political party to share most Americans necessary and healthy distrust of government when that party aspires to being that government, permanently.
Democrats need a primer refresher course, a deep-rooted understanding that while givernment may be a given, its success depends entirely upon the competition of ideas outside of government by the two political parties vying honestly for the electoral backing of an Anerican majority.
Politics 101 has somehow become elusive to Democrats' 21st century statist mindset, no thanks to its Woke Leftist drag.
There is an opening for a moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - to be elected President in 2028. Trump's public personality alone alienates millions of persuadable voters, and some of his policies are very unpopular.
But there is zero evidence that a moderate Democrat can overcome the far Left activists who control the party's nominating process. The crazies show up to vote in primaries because they are intensely motivated voters, while the moderates are intermittent in their voting habits (likewise with most working class Trump voters who only vote when Trump's name is on the ballot). Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI.
The only hope for Democrats in 2028 - and it's a realistic hope - is that economic conditions are bad enough that any Democrat can beat any Republican.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders..." If you look on their websites, you will notice that most or all of them say that. Amy Klobuchar: "As we face global and domestic threats, securing our borders, points of entry, and infrastructure must be a top priority."
But, do they mean it? Of course not. They propose an immigration bill which would stop just 4% of the illegal aliens from entering the country and would deport none who were already here. It's the same on other issues like taxes, education and health care. Since they do the exact opposite of what they said they will, it's a waste of time to listen to anything they say.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI."
Actually, I think there are very few elected Democrats who would say or who believe that we do not need secure borders, that we should allow every impoverished arrival to collect public assistance indefinitely. And there are many who believe and say that while the rights of every person should be protected there are areas where transgender ideology has become far too extreme and DEI a manifestation of identity politics as corrosive on the left as spreading white nationalist views are on the right.
Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Rahm Emmanuel are all examples that come to mind of Democrats holding such views who appear to have ambitions for national office (apologies to those whose names have not come to mind), and they also represent a variety of positions within the Democratic Party broad base. I think we'll be seeing Gavin Newsom, who originally positioned himself much closer to progressivism (as it's now understood) increasingly sending signals that he recognizes the need for moderate policies on immigration, gender issues, and DEI as well.
Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint, or reconsideration of Green polices driving up energy prices?
I had high hopes for Josh Shapiro. His claim to moderate fame was support of school choice, which he promptly repudiated before he unpacked in the Governor's Mansion, but conveniently after, Penn parents elected him.
Forgive my bluntness, it is just my opinion, but Amy Klobuchar is Karenism personified. She is Nancy Pelosi without the polish and 9 figure portfolio. She voted with Biden 100% of the time.
Buttigieg was too obsessed with racist roads, to consider maybe year around tutors for the kids on the wrong side of tracks, would be more helpful then wasting tens of millions of dollars moving perfectly safe freeways 400 yards, so they were no longer appear "racist" in Dem eyes.
Take it from someone paroled after 25 years in CA, Newsom is not moderating. He is shedding his Progressive skin, that will grow back after 2028.
For the better part of a decade, Newsom legally forbade CA state employees from traveling to Red States on official CA business, lest the racism, homophobia, and xenophobia permeating Red State air infect CA state employees, like a virus. The ban ended less than 3 years ago, not 30 years ago.
Now Newsom wants the same Swing State voters, he deemed such homophobic racist rubes, his employees could not safely breath the same air, to elect him President? That might be a steeper hill than many Dems realize.
Amy Klobuchar has always been good on one issue no one pays attention to, but for the rural west, where people during a bad year of work can put 200 lbs of meat in the freezer, she votes always against wolves. Cow elk aren't very much to brag about for horns, but the kids eat good meat through Easter. Also most cow calf operations are small, 40 or 50 cows, a pack of wolves can put someone out of business in a couple of months. People lose the ranch. Not a big fan of Klobuchar, but on one thing she is dependable good.
"Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint . . .?"
Yes, I can, Ms. Ross. Amy Klobuchar was a supporter of the bipartisan Lankford border control bill in 2024, which Biden supported as well. (I have no idea whatever what you mean by "Karenism" with regard to Klobuchar, but it does not seem to me related to the issues here.) Pete Buttigieg's 2020 campaign position also included a proposal for securing the border and regulating the flow of immigrants and asylum seekers. In no way has he ever supported the position that we "allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life" -- nor, I believe, has any major Democratic candidate. You may not like some of Buttigieg's actions when he was Mayor (which is what I assume you're referring to), but he has acted as a Democratic moderate for many years.
As for Josh Shapiro, I named him because he is one of many Democrats who support transgender rights in general but who have come out against interpreting this to include sports participation.
As for supporting Green legislation, since I support green legislation myself and think it should be a goal of Democrats to help spread green technologies as rapidly as American society will accept them, I do not see such positions as ones that Democrats should oppose. Those who demand Democrats oppose green legislation are, I believe, Republicans. This is not a matter of a litmus test for Democrats, it is an area of policy disagreement between the parties and our tradition of a two-party system is generally beneficial because it allows those disagreements to be argued out.
"Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro opposes legislative bans on transgender athletes participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, favoring instead that such decisions be made by athletic associations like the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) on a case-by-case basis. He has called politicians who support such bans 'extremist.'"
Hi MG, Thanks for looking into this. I think you'll find if you look closer that Shapiro's position has a number of components.
Shapiro does disapprove of the currently proposed SB 9, which includes provisions banning trans women athlete participation in women's sports, and has said that, given the number of cases (three in the past five years, out of ~350,000 participants) it is wiser to treat these on an individualized basis through the PIAA. He has also specified that the principle governing decisions is that trans athletes "shouldn't get a special advantage on the field." He has also opposed SB 9 on the grounds that it is an unnecessary intrusion of legislation in a context that can be satisfactorily managed by civic associations. Others have pointed out that SB 9 is sweeping in its ban, including all school sports activities down to elementary levels, where the separation of genders in sports is for social rather than physical reasons. This is what has prompted many opponents of the bill to characterize its backers as extreme.
FYI, my own position on this issue is that there should be a presumption that trans girls and women who have gone through male puberty should not be eligible to compete for championship standing in women's sports, but should be able to participate in non-contact women's sports on a non-championship basis. This is in line with the policy direction of the Women's Sports Policy Working Group, which was formed in 2020 to "to restore girls’ & women’s legal right to female-only sports & intimate spaces." (See, https://womenssportspolicy.org/highlights-our-position/) The WSPWG seems to me to find a good balance between the goals of protecting girls and women and recognizing the individual needs of trans athletes as far as possible in a spirit of accommodation.
Thank you. Calling the Immigration Bill bipartisan is a bit of a stretch. James Langford was a Youth Minister prior to politics. His religion mandates care for the poor, regardless of borders. That may be an admirable way to live personally, but it is not remotely sustainable in a nation with a generous welfare system.
Langford was handpicked by a soon to retire Mitch McConnell, one of the last Koch Bros/Open Border Reps still in office. The Immigration Bill simply codified into law Biden's 3 million migrants a year, by the time exempt countries and Gotaways were included. This on top of the 1 million normal order immigrants the US accepts each year. All without a single extra bedroom to house any of the millions of newcomers.
In a decade, the Immigration bill would have formed a new landless migrant only state, comprised of only new migrants, larger than 48 other US states. In the end, I do not believe either Langford, McConnell or any other Rep voted for the bill.
Buttigieg may have campaigned on a secure border in 2020, but he was moot on the topic from 2021-2025, unless agreeing with Mayorkas the border was secure. The racists roads where Pete's federal pet projects that supposedly keep poor sections of cities separate, from more wealthy areas. In Austin a massive freeway is being moved about 1/4 of a mile at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
I have not heard Shapiro advocate to protect girl's sports, but will take your word for it. Perhaps for Dems, the above is moderation. I stand corrected.
There is no evidence - not even a particle of evidence - to support the claims you make here other than for Rahm Emanuel. All the other Democrats you mention are completely silent about these issues except when they express opposition to what any Republican says about them. They are all terrified of the Wokesters who now control the Democratic nominating process.
None of them are sincere in what they say. They all supported the Biden non-enforcement of immigration laws and they even the ICE actions to arrest criminals. None of them has pushed back on the extremes of transgender mania and DEI. They are fortunate that all major media political journalists outside of Fox function as cheerleaders for them and will never ask them questions that challenge them about these issues.
"None of them are sincere" is a statement not open to proof or disproof, Mr. Webster. I gave examples that contradict the claims you made and you have waved them away. Putting my reply together took some effort (such as fact-checking myself on positions taken by the politicians I named). When you dismiss it out of hand I have to feel that there's really nothing to be gained by further effort when you're in this frame of mind. Perhaps at another time we can engage more seriously.
During Obama's time every state and county jail would release illegal immigrants to ICE. The rules changed back and forth between all detainees or just those with serious misdemeanors like DUI or domestic violence, and sometimes allowing those with minor children who were citizens. I haven't heard any of those you mention advocate deportation for people whose crime is illegal entry or who have prior deportation orders.
ban nock, are you asking me to pore through statements concerning this specific aspect of the immigration issue to see whether these politicians have addressed them? In recent years, most of those crossing the border have learned to claim asylum, and it is not illegal to enter without permission in order to seek asylum. At that point the problem becomes trying to determine which claims are legitimate. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar have advocated massive enlargements of the adjudication courts so that these claims can be expeditiously decided and those whose claims are without merit deported. As for prior deportation orders, I have never heard any of these politicians oppose deportation of those whose deportation orders have been fully adjudicated, have you?
One can legally only claim asylum at a valid Port of Entry. Entry between Ports of Entry can only be cured by surrender to Immigration authorities in a timely manner. Roughly 2 million migrants did not, which means they qualify for expedited removal, unless trafficked against their will or absent other exigent circumstances.
FYI, about 3-4 million Biden migrants qualify for expedited removal, which is basically removal on a fingerprint. 500K-1 million already lost in Immigration Court, were handed a Final Order of Deportation and refused to leave the US. Another 500K -1 million have been previously deported. Another 2 million did not enter thru a valid Port of Entry and surrender to Immigration. These people are not legally entitled to asylum hearings, only removal, upon proof of identity.
Crossing the border between official ports of entry (like a river or desert) to enter the U.S. is technically an unlawful entry, carrying consequences like arrest, detention, and removal. Doesn't matter how many sob stories one can invent after the fact.
In countries where I've worked there was a very vast difference between working illegally on a visa like a tourist visa and sneaking across the border. Sneaking got beat, usually by border guards.
Countries everywhere don't want people sneaking in. Sorry.
Those who cross between ports now most often immediately seek out a border agent to surrender to and make a claim of asylum. The illegality of the crossing is determined by adjudication.
Countries everywhere (well, not everywhere) have traditionally recognized that refugees seeking asylum should be able to find refuge if their claims of imperilment are warranted. I'm not claiming asylum seekers are deserving; I'm pointing out that the illegality of their crossing cannot be determined without due process. It is, of course, a major burden, which is why Biden and other Democrats have sought to assign the type of enhanced support to immigration courts that President Trump has instead assigned to ICE.
Fake refugees get put in prison. Anyone who show up on our southern border is a fake. Neolibs looking for cheap labor via BS asylum lose elections, as they well should.
Immigrants have been coached and they game the system and citizens are sick of being patsies. If immigrants have claims of imperilment then why don't they stop at the first safe country? Instead they move onto the good old U.S.A. for housing assistance, food assistance, and sometimes (as in NYC) loaded debit cards.
If the Democrats were even close to wanting to repair the damage as opposed to just papering it over with rhetoric and hoping no one notices, they would be even more upset over the Minnesota welfare scam and demanding heads roll (figuratively of course) than the Republicans are.
I thought the left tea party was already in control for 4 years. Woke corporatists. That was 4 years of delaying the loans for the advanced degrees, inflated salaries for everyone able to write a grant proposal, and cheap servants. I don't think the Left Tea Party was interested in esoteric meat and potatoes things like the FTC, Labor Relations Board, or Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau. The Left Tea folks had their way, and they still control media and academia.
As with AOC, once you strip the Park Slope Populists down to their essentials they are show horses not work horses. Lots of noise, no benefit to anyone except government largess for themselves. Financing au pairs is not at the top of my priorities. I really don't need a Tesla and neither do they.
FYI references to essays behind unassailable pay walls do nothing for me. I'm sure I'd love to read what Judis had to say, but not for $90.
Another too long post. As an independent, I have no idea what this article means to me. As far as I read, the Dems could care less about those of us they need to win national elections. But, once again, ad nauseam, your fortunes rely on Trump failure. That last poll I saw that measured those who voted for Trump and were satisfied with his progress was 80%. Your fighters right now, currently Kelly, are like the school wimp who hides behind distance to get a running start away from those they are calling bullies. And now, you want to protect those who kill 100,000 Americans a year with illegal drug overdoses. Seems you are catering more to the enemies of the citizens of this country than the citizens. The Dems are, quite frankly, anathema to what good leadership is needed for this country. Might the Dems win control of the House in 26? god what a dreadful thought. Only because they don't know how to govern and will spend two years trying to impeach Trump and we have been here, we hated it, and it lost you elections. I would say the first thing you folks need to find are adults, and not slick willys like Newsome, to show you have some idea of what the voters want they can count on for not being beholden to other than the radical left of your party. If Newsome wants to be like Trump, and people hate Trump, why the hell would anyone vote for a poor imitation of Trump?
By 28, we will have a good idea of what your Mandamis have to offer for the people. The good money is on more harm than good. The more socialists you elect, look at Seattle for a mayor who still lives in her parents basement, and your self destruct will be clearly evident.
Bluntly, you are a disgusting bunch of idiots catering to a bunch of out of touch elites telling us once again don't believe your eyes, we are not for the rich elites but for the working man and woman.
Our leaving the Democratic Party, for good, is because progressives have infested it and changed it. Progressives slam white people, males, baby boomers, police officers, financially successful people, and patriotic people.
Well, we are all of those.
And what do you know? They aren't as happy or as tolerant as conservatives are.
That's much more important to us than political positions.
Democrats (because of progressives) could try to use a different message all they want, but it will contain none of the power that conservatives' message which will be: "Mamdani."
OK so you want Biden 2.0. The first Biden administration was the most progressive in US history and it sounds like you want to pick up where they left off and add more: income redistribution, more government programs. It may be too soon to sell the voters on the policies they just rejected.
Trump & company have been disrupters, for sure. I’m more concerned with the DSA, the identity-obsessed contingent on the left who have been intent on rewiring our institutions to accommodate their illiberal far-left politics.
This piece reads like the worst kind of pundit-class wishcasting—an exercise in treating publication as political action. It retrofits a romanticized version of the Tea Party into a lesson for Democrats, glosses over the actual power dynamics inside the party, and floats abstract “moods” and metaphors in place of anything grounded in how politics really works. The argument never coheres because it’s aimed at fellow commentators, not at understanding the electorate or the institutional constraints the party actually faces. It’s Bulwark-style discourse for its own sake: words standing in for deeds, analysis detached from consequence, and a performative sense of urgency that evaporates as soon as you ask what any of this would change in the real world.
Be that as it may, there’s an important distinction missing in these comments. At the national level, Democrats are not controlled by “woke mobs” or Marxist cadres—Biden’s actual policy record makes that pretty clear.
But here in Oregon, especially in Portland and Multnomah County, politics really do come closer to the caricature that people keep projecting onto the entire Democratic Party. Local governance has been shaped for years by an NGO–activist ecosystem steeped in critical-theory language, ideological litmus tests, and a small vanguard of self-anointed visionaries who see themselves as morally obligated to drag the electorate toward a theoretical ideal. It isn’t Marxism, but it's certainly Marxian in style: policymaking driven by abstract frameworks rather than ground truth, a distrust of public preferences, and a habit of treating dissent as moral failure.
That’s a localized pathology, not the operating system of national Democrats. Portland is not the country, and it’s a mistake to treat its political culture as representative of the party as a whole.
The fundamental problem with Democrats, and note the "demo" in their name, and this is proven in the testbed of all the states and cities they control, is the doom loop of economic demolition.
Democrat politicians run on a lazy platform of free stuff to the lazy and dissendranchised masses that vote for them. They tax to pay for their great social programs... chase tax paying business and earners away... and then have to keep raising taxes to perpetuate this spiral down into economic dystopia. The economic dystopia fuels social decay.
Democrats lived with this capability until Democrats embraced globalism and massive immigration. Those things killed their golden tax and spend goose. But they cannot seem to stop. They dont want to admit that there is no more gravy train, and fiscal conservatism plus economic vitality from a national industrial policy is needed.
“even Democratic critics of woke dogma admit that progressives have been responsible for reinvigorating the party after the disappointments and setbacks of the Obama era.”
Really? Seriously? Only if “reinvigorating” the party means “handing it over to baby Stalinists who want to cancel and virtue signal the party’s way to electoral oblivion.”
It’s 13 months since Trump won a second election and the Dems still don’t get it. If you say, "but unchecked illegal immigration isn’t a good thing,” you’re a racist deplorable who doesn’t want to admit that this country was built on immigrants. If you say that men can’t turn into women, you’re a transphobe who wants to erase “trans women.” Meanwhile, 25% of students at UC San Diego can’t answer “7 + 2 = ? + 6”.* This is a highly selective university that rejects 75% of applicants. Harvard and Stanford, which reject >95% of applicants run remedial math classes.
The Dems haven’t been reinvigorated They’ve turned into a woke mob. And they won’t win the presidency until they find their way back to sanity.
*https://x.com/BrandonWarmke/status/1989069715302666356
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/11/12/uc-san-diego-sees-students-math-skills-plummet
The only thing keeping the Democrat party alive at this moment is Donald Trump. The Democrat party is otherwise dead. It is the party of identity politics that include, but not limited to African-Americans illegal aliens queers Marxists elite academics and of course unions most especially the teachers unions are destroying American education. Once Donald J Trump is gone the Democrats will have nothing to say. Of course, a lot of what I am saying will depend on who replaces Trump. On that same token who is going to be the Democrat nominate. The top four so-called contenders Pitzka Newsom, Kamala waltz, and that bum from California Ro something out of the question. Oh yeah, and AOC what a joke that would be.
I've said this before, but the far-left will hate JD Vance just as much as they hate Trump, if not more. Expect a lot of talk about how he's the Commander from The Handmaid's Tale whereas Trump was just a crass buffoon and wannabe dictator. Vance really will be able to deliver on the fascist America that Trump wanted.
Whether or not they can sell moderates on this as well will be interesting.
I really do not care what the left thinks or hates because it is the left that has destroyed and continues to destroy America.
Democrats may not control the three branches of government, but they do control all of the institutions, except for SCOTUS.
It is hard to pull off the insurgency schtick when you are already The Man.
Distrust of government is huge. Note, though, that it's not the Democrats urging investigations into "big food" but RFK, Jr. (Yes, SF has launched a lawsuit, which will go nowhere). Note that it is Trump's administration talking about breaking up some big monopolies. Notice that it is Trump's HHS that is rolling back the massively distrusted vax mandates. Note that it is Trump's administration questioning the STATES' willingness to hand out drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. Note that it is Trump who is investigating the Somaliland welfare fraud in MN. In short, wherever you look, Trump is using government to address the DISTRUST in government. Democrats aren't even in the same universe.
Now, for my usual roundup---and yes there was a great poll for Trump and I put no more stock in good ones for him than bad ones---we had a BIG drop in voter registration data last week, including DE, NJ, ID, UT, FL, CO, KY, LA, RI, PA, and NC. There were so many I'm probably leaving some out. Out of all these observations, only PA and maybe 2 others saw any gain whatsoever by Ds (and we're talking a couple of hundred, not thousands). PA was one, where Ds reclaimed about 270, despite not moving the needle at all in the "swing" counties such as Northampton. But otherwise, we are looking at---yet again, for the 20th straight month---solid R gains. Now, let's be clear: in many cases BOTH parties (+indies) lost numbers to voter roll purges, but in almost all cases the Rs gained ground in those shifts. But the biggies---IA (Rs gained 1/2 point statewide), FL (Rs gained yet another 10,000 to go up over 1.4 million), and NC (Rs gained another net 3,000, meaning by this time Feb NC will be a red state---all moved red-ward. This is completely inconsistent with "polling" and suggests that whatever reservations voters have about Rs, they are terrified of Ds. The Amazing Zohran in NYC will only hurt as his crazed policies come into effect. The investigations of Walz will only hurt. And Newsome? CA continues to wallow.
A "tea party" of the left would involve serious efforts to distance themselves from the vax; from China; from "climate change" (which is collapsing world wide); to embrace Big Data and Big Oil for Big Data; to embrace crypto; to break up Hollywood monopolies; and to insist that not only can there be NO fraud at all associated with illegals, but all illegals must go. Now, do you really see any of that happening? Hence, voter registration shifts.
I'd not mention JFK so as not to be thought a crazy like he is. Trump made a promise and kept it, it was up to the senate to turn down that nomination and they blew it. The sec of HHS is anti germ theory.
First, that’s a disingenuous criticism after literally 50 years of horrible nutrition science like the 80s war on fat. We replaced saturated fat with trans fats and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and pursued a high sugar and refined carb alternative to a wholesome diet of steak and potatoes.
As to terrain theory, it’s flawed but germ theory cannot incorporate good microbes like those in the gut biome. Terraine theory is an incremental improvement, although bad bacteria can invade a healthy biome.
“NC (Rs gained another net 3,000, meaning by this time Feb NC will be a red state---all moved red-ward. “
Again—this is where your methodology’s actual results bears little to no relation to the claims you’re making.
The above claim is like saying ‘hey the CPI was 1% lower this month, another 9 months of declines and prices will have dropped %10!’
It’s the kind of thing someone says when they don’t understand the CPI.
The Party is too far left as it is. If it moves farther left, it's over for them.
The largest Dem hurdle? Trump has an expiration date. Lousy Dem policy does not. Bob is right. Trump is the Dem MVP. Only Trump's spending and language, lousy Rep messaging, and the Left's nearly magical Madison Avenue ability to repackage tired ideas, are keeping Dems afloat.
"Affordability" is just "inflation" with new verbiage that allows Dems to blame Reps for Biden's historic rise in prices. Reps should daily be spouting Biden's greatest hits.
1. Trillions flushed on Green fantasies based on "Climate facts" with all the scientific accuracy of the Flat Earth Society. Everyone from Bill Gates to Nature Magazine is mumbling "Sorry, our Bad", after Dems wasted trillions on every loonie Climate idea ever birthed.
Dems seriously proclaimed the death of fossil fuels. They shuttered refineries, pipelines, nuclear power plants and coal facilities with nothing to replace them but wind and solar fairy tales. Then Dems tossed wood on the fire of the Mother of All Bad Ideas, with EV mandates and subsidies, insane appliance and building regulations. . . The combination has produced soaring energy prices, in a nation awash in energy reserves.
2. Housing costs increased 50% or more, nationwide, due to Dems holding interest rates too low for too long, the arrival of 10-12 million migrants without a single extra bedroom to house them and Green regulation.
3. Dem Child social engineering cheered the removal of healthy child body parts, the end of fertility before high school graduation, via "medication", and boys in Girl's female spaces. Dems topped off their War on Children, with many Blue State schools closed for 18 months. The result has been the worst US school test scores in decades.
4. DEI and woke, enough said.
5. Massive increases in healthcare and welfare spending with little to no citizen benefit. Costs were stoked by the lethal combination of lousy policy, massive waste and fraud, and the purposeful importation of 10 -12 million of people, most in need of permanent subsidy.
Yet, no Dem is repudiating any of the above. No Dem Party Reformation coming, just Mamdani and our daily Donald diatribe. Reps may well hand Dems Congress and the WH, but Dem policy will not.
It has to be hard for a political party to share most Americans necessary and healthy distrust of government when that party aspires to being that government, permanently.
Democrats need a primer refresher course, a deep-rooted understanding that while givernment may be a given, its success depends entirely upon the competition of ideas outside of government by the two political parties vying honestly for the electoral backing of an Anerican majority.
Politics 101 has somehow become elusive to Democrats' 21st century statist mindset, no thanks to its Woke Leftist drag.
There is an opening for a moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - to be elected President in 2028. Trump's public personality alone alienates millions of persuadable voters, and some of his policies are very unpopular.
But there is zero evidence that a moderate Democrat can overcome the far Left activists who control the party's nominating process. The crazies show up to vote in primaries because they are intensely motivated voters, while the moderates are intermittent in their voting habits (likewise with most working class Trump voters who only vote when Trump's name is on the ballot). Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI.
The only hope for Democrats in 2028 - and it's a realistic hope - is that economic conditions are bad enough that any Democrat can beat any Republican.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders..." If you look on their websites, you will notice that most or all of them say that. Amy Klobuchar: "As we face global and domestic threats, securing our borders, points of entry, and infrastructure must be a top priority."
But, do they mean it? Of course not. They propose an immigration bill which would stop just 4% of the illegal aliens from entering the country and would deport none who were already here. It's the same on other issues like taxes, education and health care. Since they do the exact opposite of what they said they will, it's a waste of time to listen to anything they say.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI."
Actually, I think there are very few elected Democrats who would say or who believe that we do not need secure borders, that we should allow every impoverished arrival to collect public assistance indefinitely. And there are many who believe and say that while the rights of every person should be protected there are areas where transgender ideology has become far too extreme and DEI a manifestation of identity politics as corrosive on the left as spreading white nationalist views are on the right.
Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Rahm Emmanuel are all examples that come to mind of Democrats holding such views who appear to have ambitions for national office (apologies to those whose names have not come to mind), and they also represent a variety of positions within the Democratic Party broad base. I think we'll be seeing Gavin Newsom, who originally positioned himself much closer to progressivism (as it's now understood) increasingly sending signals that he recognizes the need for moderate policies on immigration, gender issues, and DEI as well.
Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint, or reconsideration of Green polices driving up energy prices?
I had high hopes for Josh Shapiro. His claim to moderate fame was support of school choice, which he promptly repudiated before he unpacked in the Governor's Mansion, but conveniently after, Penn parents elected him.
Forgive my bluntness, it is just my opinion, but Amy Klobuchar is Karenism personified. She is Nancy Pelosi without the polish and 9 figure portfolio. She voted with Biden 100% of the time.
Buttigieg was too obsessed with racist roads, to consider maybe year around tutors for the kids on the wrong side of tracks, would be more helpful then wasting tens of millions of dollars moving perfectly safe freeways 400 yards, so they were no longer appear "racist" in Dem eyes.
Take it from someone paroled after 25 years in CA, Newsom is not moderating. He is shedding his Progressive skin, that will grow back after 2028.
For the better part of a decade, Newsom legally forbade CA state employees from traveling to Red States on official CA business, lest the racism, homophobia, and xenophobia permeating Red State air infect CA state employees, like a virus. The ban ended less than 3 years ago, not 30 years ago.
Now Newsom wants the same Swing State voters, he deemed such homophobic racist rubes, his employees could not safely breath the same air, to elect him President? That might be a steeper hill than many Dems realize.
Agree. I suspect that Newsom would be less electable than Harris, who was less electable than Hillary Clinton. And Clinton never had a chance.
Amy Klobuchar has always been good on one issue no one pays attention to, but for the rural west, where people during a bad year of work can put 200 lbs of meat in the freezer, she votes always against wolves. Cow elk aren't very much to brag about for horns, but the kids eat good meat through Easter. Also most cow calf operations are small, 40 or 50 cows, a pack of wolves can put someone out of business in a couple of months. People lose the ranch. Not a big fan of Klobuchar, but on one thing she is dependable good.
Stellar reply.
"Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint . . .?"
Yes, I can, Ms. Ross. Amy Klobuchar was a supporter of the bipartisan Lankford border control bill in 2024, which Biden supported as well. (I have no idea whatever what you mean by "Karenism" with regard to Klobuchar, but it does not seem to me related to the issues here.) Pete Buttigieg's 2020 campaign position also included a proposal for securing the border and regulating the flow of immigrants and asylum seekers. In no way has he ever supported the position that we "allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life" -- nor, I believe, has any major Democratic candidate. You may not like some of Buttigieg's actions when he was Mayor (which is what I assume you're referring to), but he has acted as a Democratic moderate for many years.
As for Josh Shapiro, I named him because he is one of many Democrats who support transgender rights in general but who have come out against interpreting this to include sports participation.
As for supporting Green legislation, since I support green legislation myself and think it should be a goal of Democrats to help spread green technologies as rapidly as American society will accept them, I do not see such positions as ones that Democrats should oppose. Those who demand Democrats oppose green legislation are, I believe, Republicans. This is not a matter of a litmus test for Democrats, it is an area of policy disagreement between the parties and our tradition of a two-party system is generally beneficial because it allows those disagreements to be argued out.
"Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro opposes legislative bans on transgender athletes participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, favoring instead that such decisions be made by athletic associations like the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) on a case-by-case basis. He has called politicians who support such bans 'extremist.'"
Hi MG, Thanks for looking into this. I think you'll find if you look closer that Shapiro's position has a number of components.
Shapiro does disapprove of the currently proposed SB 9, which includes provisions banning trans women athlete participation in women's sports, and has said that, given the number of cases (three in the past five years, out of ~350,000 participants) it is wiser to treat these on an individualized basis through the PIAA. He has also specified that the principle governing decisions is that trans athletes "shouldn't get a special advantage on the field." He has also opposed SB 9 on the grounds that it is an unnecessary intrusion of legislation in a context that can be satisfactorily managed by civic associations. Others have pointed out that SB 9 is sweeping in its ban, including all school sports activities down to elementary levels, where the separation of genders in sports is for social rather than physical reasons. This is what has prompted many opponents of the bill to characterize its backers as extreme.
FYI, my own position on this issue is that there should be a presumption that trans girls and women who have gone through male puberty should not be eligible to compete for championship standing in women's sports, but should be able to participate in non-contact women's sports on a non-championship basis. This is in line with the policy direction of the Women's Sports Policy Working Group, which was formed in 2020 to "to restore girls’ & women’s legal right to female-only sports & intimate spaces." (See, https://womenssportspolicy.org/highlights-our-position/) The WSPWG seems to me to find a good balance between the goals of protecting girls and women and recognizing the individual needs of trans athletes as far as possible in a spirit of accommodation.
Thank you. Calling the Immigration Bill bipartisan is a bit of a stretch. James Langford was a Youth Minister prior to politics. His religion mandates care for the poor, regardless of borders. That may be an admirable way to live personally, but it is not remotely sustainable in a nation with a generous welfare system.
Langford was handpicked by a soon to retire Mitch McConnell, one of the last Koch Bros/Open Border Reps still in office. The Immigration Bill simply codified into law Biden's 3 million migrants a year, by the time exempt countries and Gotaways were included. This on top of the 1 million normal order immigrants the US accepts each year. All without a single extra bedroom to house any of the millions of newcomers.
In a decade, the Immigration bill would have formed a new landless migrant only state, comprised of only new migrants, larger than 48 other US states. In the end, I do not believe either Langford, McConnell or any other Rep voted for the bill.
Buttigieg may have campaigned on a secure border in 2020, but he was moot on the topic from 2021-2025, unless agreeing with Mayorkas the border was secure. The racists roads where Pete's federal pet projects that supposedly keep poor sections of cities separate, from more wealthy areas. In Austin a massive freeway is being moved about 1/4 of a mile at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
I have not heard Shapiro advocate to protect girl's sports, but will take your word for it. Perhaps for Dems, the above is moderation. I stand corrected.
There is no evidence - not even a particle of evidence - to support the claims you make here other than for Rahm Emanuel. All the other Democrats you mention are completely silent about these issues except when they express opposition to what any Republican says about them. They are all terrified of the Wokesters who now control the Democratic nominating process.
I provided evidence in my response to Ms. Ross, above, Mr. Webster.
None of them are sincere in what they say. They all supported the Biden non-enforcement of immigration laws and they even the ICE actions to arrest criminals. None of them has pushed back on the extremes of transgender mania and DEI. They are fortunate that all major media political journalists outside of Fox function as cheerleaders for them and will never ask them questions that challenge them about these issues.
"None of them are sincere" is a statement not open to proof or disproof, Mr. Webster. I gave examples that contradict the claims you made and you have waved them away. Putting my reply together took some effort (such as fact-checking myself on positions taken by the politicians I named). When you dismiss it out of hand I have to feel that there's really nothing to be gained by further effort when you're in this frame of mind. Perhaps at another time we can engage more seriously.
During Obama's time every state and county jail would release illegal immigrants to ICE. The rules changed back and forth between all detainees or just those with serious misdemeanors like DUI or domestic violence, and sometimes allowing those with minor children who were citizens. I haven't heard any of those you mention advocate deportation for people whose crime is illegal entry or who have prior deportation orders.
ban nock, are you asking me to pore through statements concerning this specific aspect of the immigration issue to see whether these politicians have addressed them? In recent years, most of those crossing the border have learned to claim asylum, and it is not illegal to enter without permission in order to seek asylum. At that point the problem becomes trying to determine which claims are legitimate. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar have advocated massive enlargements of the adjudication courts so that these claims can be expeditiously decided and those whose claims are without merit deported. As for prior deportation orders, I have never heard any of these politicians oppose deportation of those whose deportation orders have been fully adjudicated, have you?
One can legally only claim asylum at a valid Port of Entry. Entry between Ports of Entry can only be cured by surrender to Immigration authorities in a timely manner. Roughly 2 million migrants did not, which means they qualify for expedited removal, unless trafficked against their will or absent other exigent circumstances.
FYI, about 3-4 million Biden migrants qualify for expedited removal, which is basically removal on a fingerprint. 500K-1 million already lost in Immigration Court, were handed a Final Order of Deportation and refused to leave the US. Another 500K -1 million have been previously deported. Another 2 million did not enter thru a valid Port of Entry and surrender to Immigration. These people are not legally entitled to asylum hearings, only removal, upon proof of identity.
Crossing the border between official ports of entry (like a river or desert) to enter the U.S. is technically an unlawful entry, carrying consequences like arrest, detention, and removal. Doesn't matter how many sob stories one can invent after the fact.
In countries where I've worked there was a very vast difference between working illegally on a visa like a tourist visa and sneaking across the border. Sneaking got beat, usually by border guards.
Countries everywhere don't want people sneaking in. Sorry.
Those who cross between ports now most often immediately seek out a border agent to surrender to and make a claim of asylum. The illegality of the crossing is determined by adjudication.
Countries everywhere (well, not everywhere) have traditionally recognized that refugees seeking asylum should be able to find refuge if their claims of imperilment are warranted. I'm not claiming asylum seekers are deserving; I'm pointing out that the illegality of their crossing cannot be determined without due process. It is, of course, a major burden, which is why Biden and other Democrats have sought to assign the type of enhanced support to immigration courts that President Trump has instead assigned to ICE.
Fake refugees get put in prison. Anyone who show up on our southern border is a fake. Neolibs looking for cheap labor via BS asylum lose elections, as they well should.
Immigrants have been coached and they game the system and citizens are sick of being patsies. If immigrants have claims of imperilment then why don't they stop at the first safe country? Instead they move onto the good old U.S.A. for housing assistance, food assistance, and sometimes (as in NYC) loaded debit cards.
If the Democrats were even close to wanting to repair the damage as opposed to just papering it over with rhetoric and hoping no one notices, they would be even more upset over the Minnesota welfare scam and demanding heads roll (figuratively of course) than the Republicans are.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/minnesota-welfare-fraud-somalia-al-shabaab
I thought the left tea party was already in control for 4 years. Woke corporatists. That was 4 years of delaying the loans for the advanced degrees, inflated salaries for everyone able to write a grant proposal, and cheap servants. I don't think the Left Tea Party was interested in esoteric meat and potatoes things like the FTC, Labor Relations Board, or Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau. The Left Tea folks had their way, and they still control media and academia.
As with AOC, once you strip the Park Slope Populists down to their essentials they are show horses not work horses. Lots of noise, no benefit to anyone except government largess for themselves. Financing au pairs is not at the top of my priorities. I really don't need a Tesla and neither do they.
FYI references to essays behind unassailable pay walls do nothing for me. I'm sure I'd love to read what Judis had to say, but not for $90.
Another too long post. As an independent, I have no idea what this article means to me. As far as I read, the Dems could care less about those of us they need to win national elections. But, once again, ad nauseam, your fortunes rely on Trump failure. That last poll I saw that measured those who voted for Trump and were satisfied with his progress was 80%. Your fighters right now, currently Kelly, are like the school wimp who hides behind distance to get a running start away from those they are calling bullies. And now, you want to protect those who kill 100,000 Americans a year with illegal drug overdoses. Seems you are catering more to the enemies of the citizens of this country than the citizens. The Dems are, quite frankly, anathema to what good leadership is needed for this country. Might the Dems win control of the House in 26? god what a dreadful thought. Only because they don't know how to govern and will spend two years trying to impeach Trump and we have been here, we hated it, and it lost you elections. I would say the first thing you folks need to find are adults, and not slick willys like Newsome, to show you have some idea of what the voters want they can count on for not being beholden to other than the radical left of your party. If Newsome wants to be like Trump, and people hate Trump, why the hell would anyone vote for a poor imitation of Trump?
By 28, we will have a good idea of what your Mandamis have to offer for the people. The good money is on more harm than good. The more socialists you elect, look at Seattle for a mayor who still lives in her parents basement, and your self destruct will be clearly evident.
Bluntly, you are a disgusting bunch of idiots catering to a bunch of out of touch elites telling us once again don't believe your eyes, we are not for the rich elites but for the working man and woman.
Our leaving the Democratic Party, for good, is because progressives have infested it and changed it. Progressives slam white people, males, baby boomers, police officers, financially successful people, and patriotic people.
Well, we are all of those.
And what do you know? They aren't as happy or as tolerant as conservatives are.
That's much more important to us than political positions.
Democrats (because of progressives) could try to use a different message all they want, but it will contain none of the power that conservatives' message which will be: "Mamdani."
OK so you want Biden 2.0. The first Biden administration was the most progressive in US history and it sounds like you want to pick up where they left off and add more: income redistribution, more government programs. It may be too soon to sell the voters on the policies they just rejected.
Trump & company have been disrupters, for sure. I’m more concerned with the DSA, the identity-obsessed contingent on the left who have been intent on rewiring our institutions to accommodate their illiberal far-left politics.
This piece reads like the worst kind of pundit-class wishcasting—an exercise in treating publication as political action. It retrofits a romanticized version of the Tea Party into a lesson for Democrats, glosses over the actual power dynamics inside the party, and floats abstract “moods” and metaphors in place of anything grounded in how politics really works. The argument never coheres because it’s aimed at fellow commentators, not at understanding the electorate or the institutional constraints the party actually faces. It’s Bulwark-style discourse for its own sake: words standing in for deeds, analysis detached from consequence, and a performative sense of urgency that evaporates as soon as you ask what any of this would change in the real world.
Be that as it may, there’s an important distinction missing in these comments. At the national level, Democrats are not controlled by “woke mobs” or Marxist cadres—Biden’s actual policy record makes that pretty clear.
But here in Oregon, especially in Portland and Multnomah County, politics really do come closer to the caricature that people keep projecting onto the entire Democratic Party. Local governance has been shaped for years by an NGO–activist ecosystem steeped in critical-theory language, ideological litmus tests, and a small vanguard of self-anointed visionaries who see themselves as morally obligated to drag the electorate toward a theoretical ideal. It isn’t Marxism, but it's certainly Marxian in style: policymaking driven by abstract frameworks rather than ground truth, a distrust of public preferences, and a habit of treating dissent as moral failure.
That’s a localized pathology, not the operating system of national Democrats. Portland is not the country, and it’s a mistake to treat its political culture as representative of the party as a whole.
The fundamental problem with Democrats, and note the "demo" in their name, and this is proven in the testbed of all the states and cities they control, is the doom loop of economic demolition.
Democrat politicians run on a lazy platform of free stuff to the lazy and dissendranchised masses that vote for them. They tax to pay for their great social programs... chase tax paying business and earners away... and then have to keep raising taxes to perpetuate this spiral down into economic dystopia. The economic dystopia fuels social decay.
Democrats lived with this capability until Democrats embraced globalism and massive immigration. Those things killed their golden tax and spend goose. But they cannot seem to stop. They dont want to admit that there is no more gravy train, and fiscal conservatism plus economic vitality from a national industrial policy is needed.